CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › WAR HORSE GALLOPS INTO THE SUNSET … AND YOUR HEART
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WAR HORSE GALLOPS INTO THE SUNSET … AND YOUR HEART

post #1 of 37
6/29/11 at 1:05am
Thread Starter 
by Elisabeth Rappe: link

I'm going to stock up on eyedrops and Kleenex. I don't think I can lay in enough by Christmas.
Reply
post #2 of 37
6/29/11 at 1:32am

Looks schmaltzy, but I'm ok with that... Spielberg's gotten a bit dark as of late, so it'll be interesting to see if he still has it in him.

Reply
post #3 of 37
6/29/11 at 1:44am

Great cinematography, but nothing here knocked me on my ass.

Reply
post #4 of 37
6/29/11 at 2:05am

Not chewing my fingernails in anticipation but ol Steve seems to have shot the fuck out of this one. I'll be there if only for the Spielberg shot and budgeted WWI battlefields.

 

Edit: I forgot to add some Niels Arestrup love. I didn't know he was in this. 

Reply
post #5 of 37
6/29/11 at 2:42am

My in laws wirth love this.  And you know what, I don't think it looks to shabby ether.

Reply
post #6 of 37
6/29/11 at 6:33am

I think it looks great. Just hope it can survive in our new "All Cynicism, All the Time" age.

Reply
post #7 of 37
6/29/11 at 6:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post

I think it looks great. Just hope it can survive in our new "All Cynicism, All the Time" age.


Completely agree. I think it's great that we're getting two completely different Spielberg films this winter, and this looks utterly gorgeous.

 

Reply
post #8 of 37
6/29/11 at 6:56am

Still way more excited about Tintin. It's not so much that I don't want Spielberg aiming for the heartstrings or anything, but movies about special animals are so very goddamned predictable, it's hard to get truly excited about this.

 

Still, it looks pretty, and I have all faith in Spielberg to still wring a solid flick out of this.

Reply
post #9 of 37
6/29/11 at 7:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Clark View Post

Still way more excited about Tintin. It's not so much that I don't want Spielberg aiming for the heartstrings or anything, but movies about special animals are so very goddamned predictable, it's hard to get truly excited about this.

 

Still, it looks pretty, and I have all faith in Spielberg to still wring a solid flick out of this.


Well, I do have to agree about that, but it's still nice to see one of my favorite directors back on his feet.

 

Reply
post #10 of 37
6/29/11 at 8:40am

Yeah Tintin is higher up my "want to see" list but this looks like a treat as well.

Reply
post #11 of 37
6/29/11 at 9:05am

Co-written by Richard Curtis. That's a win for me. Schmaltzy, probably. But it's just my kind of schmaltz.

 

The opening shot of the titular horse running through the battlefield took my breath away. Got a very Empire of the Sun feel from it all, but again, hey it's a Spielberg movie!

 

Kaminski knows how to shoot anything and make it look utterly magical. I'm reminded why I like movies so much watching this.

Reply
post #12 of 37
6/29/11 at 9:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post

Co-written by Richard Curtis. That's a win for me. Schmaltzy, probably. But it's just my kind of schmaltz.

 

The opening shot of the titular horse running through the battlefield took my breath away. Got a very Empire of the Sun feel from it all, but again, hey it's a Spielberg movie!

 

Kaminski knows how to shoot anything and make it look utterly magical. I'm reminded why I like movies so much watching this.

 

My thoughts exactly. I couldn't stop thinking of Empire of the Sun and if Spielberg manages to recapture that feel, I'm OK with it.

 

Reply
post #13 of 37
6/29/11 at 10:26am

I second the Empire of the Sun comparisons; this looks great, but is probably doomed to go down in Spielberg's filmography as one of his lesser historical dramas along with Empire, Amistad, and The Color Purple.

Reply
post #14 of 37
6/29/11 at 10:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMulder View Post

I second the Empire of the Sun comparisons; this looks great, but is probably doomed to go down in Spielberg's filmography as one of his lesser historical dramas along with Empire, Amistad, and The Color Purple.


It speaks to the greatness of The Beard when those are considered his "lesser" historical dramas.

 

Reply
post #15 of 37
6/29/11 at 10:54am

What's with all the neigh-sayers??    (Sorry.)

 

I was already misting up in the trailer, so I'm an easy mark for this.  I think it looks fantastic.  If Spielberg can dial it down a notch with Williams, this could be something special.   

Reply
post #16 of 37
6/29/11 at 10:54am

Nice, this looks magnificent. Visually, I see a lot of John Ford in a number of shots & tonally, it definitely strikes that Color Purple chord. Usually, Kaminski's style can be a bit much but he can shoot the sh*t out of a battlefield scene.

 

 

oh, & then there's this:

 

War-Horse-Simple-jack.jpg

Reply
post #17 of 37
6/29/11 at 11:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post


It speaks to the greatness of The Beard when those are considered his "lesser" historical dramas.

 


Out of those I'd only really call Empire of the Sun an outright success.

 

Reply
post #18 of 37
6/29/11 at 11:38am

I still don't get Color Purple hate. It's kind of an odd duck structurally, but that movie hits its mark far to often to call any sort of failure.

 

One of these days, I really need to get around to seeing Amistad.

Reply
post #19 of 37
6/29/11 at 12:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post

Co-written by Richard Curtis. That's a win for me. Schmaltzy, probably. But it's just my kind of schmaltz.

 

The opening shot of the titular horse running through the battlefield took my breath away. Got a very Empire of the Sun feel from it all, but again, hey it's a Spielberg movie!

 

Kaminski knows how to shoot anything and make it look utterly magical. I'm reminded why I like movies so much watching this.


 

I'm with you Doc.

 

Reply
post #20 of 37
6/30/11 at 4:52am

Bucho and Doc, right there with you. Reading about this film elicited nothing but "meh" from me. This trailer generated interest like mad. Hoping it's more sincere than schmaltz, though.

Reply
post #21 of 37
11/17/11 at 11:44am

Christ, this movie looks like shit. I can see I'm in the minority (or I am the minority, I guess) but oh man. I had a viscerally hateful response to the trailer. Art Decade had it right with the Simple Jack analogy. The slow push in on his face with a single tear. "In the face of war, animals are nature's miracles." 

 

I guess the kid inside me must have died a death, or something? Because this makes me feel NOTHING BUT ANGER

Reply
post #22 of 37
11/17/11 at 11:56am

No enthusiasm for this.  Wow, that's two Spielberg movies (Tin Tin being the first) I actually have no intention of seeing.  I used to idolize this man and would see everything opening day, or at least weekend.  Is it possible for a brilliant director to outstay his welcome?  Honestly I think he makes too many movies and needs to take a fucking hiatus, he's getting stale.

Reply
post #23 of 37
11/17/11 at 12:10pm

This appears to be very traditional storytelling, and that's not a bad thing. Traditions and genres can be done very well, either through subversion or celebration. This looks like a celebration of the heart-tugging Spielberg's done in other films, so I'm down with that. I will be watching the reviews with interest - if critical mass from trusted sources is bad, then I'll pass - but I'm anticipating this far, far more than TINTIN. I can't generate ANY excitement about that whatsoever.

Reply
post #24 of 37
11/17/11 at 12:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Decade View Post

Nice, this looks magnificent. Visually, I see a lot of John Ford in a number of shots & tonally, it definitely strikes that Color Purple chord. Usually, Kaminski's style can be a bit much but he can shoot the sh*t out of a battlefield scene.

 

 

oh, & then there's this:

 

War-Horse-Simple-jack.jpg


"You make me ha-ha-ha-happy!"

 

In all seriousness, the trailer, even the TV spots seem to turn on the waterworks, so I think it's safe to say I'll be a weepy wreck watching this in the theater.  A friend saw the play in London and said it was the best thing he'd ever seen on stage. 

 

Reply
post #25 of 37
11/17/11 at 2:43pm

I think most people who can't get behind this appear stuck on the fact that it's sold like a weepy romance, but the two lovers appear to be a kid and his horse. If you go beyond that and see this is Spielberg doing a WWI movie told from a series of different perspectives, all gelled together through the uncomprehending and neutral eyes of an animal, it becomes more interesting. And Jesus, look at that cinematography.

 

Personally I've got a ton of faith this is gonna be a seriously great film. And the reviews for Tintin have also been almost uniformly good, if not spectacular. The complaint that he makes too many movies mystifies me, since he hasn't really even made a legitimate one since Munich in 2005 (Skull is pointless and added nothing to his filmography). That was six years ago.

Reply
post #26 of 37
11/17/11 at 3:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMulder View Post

I think most people who can't get behind this appear stuck on the fact that it's sold like a weepy romance, but the two lovers appear to be a kid and his horse. If you go beyond that and see this is Spielberg doing a WWI movie told from a series of different perspectives, all gelled together through the uncomprehending and neutral eyes of an animal, it becomes more interesting. And Jesus, look at that cinematography.


 

This. Schmaltzy or no, just the notion of Spielberg tackling WW1 is enough to capture my interest. True, there's a lot of potential here for straight-up cheese, but a heap of potential for greatness too.
 

Reply
post #27 of 37
11/17/11 at 3:50pm

Anyone who looks at a Christmas where we get TWO Spielberg movies and simply shrugs just needs to get out of watching movies.

Reply
post #28 of 37
11/17/11 at 5:02pm

What I loved about Kurbrick was that he was incredibly picky about what he directed, so we didn't get very many films from him, making each film seem like an event and very special.  When you get so much of one thing, it tends to stale.

 

Nothing against Spielberg, I love him, but his glory days are long behind him.  I might catch this as a rental on a rainy day or on TV years from now, but there are too many other directors doing more exciting work I'd rather spend my $14 dollars on.  If going to the movies didn't cost so goddamn much, I'd be more willing to give this a shot right away...as of now, it's a big fat "meh" and I have no intention of seeing it in the near future.

Reply
post #29 of 37
11/17/11 at 5:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post

Anyone who looks at a Christmas where we get TWO Spielberg movies and simply shrugs just needs to get out of watching movies.



This.  And the thing I realized the other day:  when Spielberg's in a 'two movies in one year' mood, it's almost always great.  War of the Worlds and Munich, Minority Report and Catch Me if You Can, Jurassic Park and Schindler's List.  The Lost World and Amistad is the only 'off' double year, imo.

Reply
post #30 of 37
11/17/11 at 6:01pm


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post



This.  And the thing I realized the other day:  when Spielberg's in a 'two movies in one year' mood, it's almost always great.  War of the Worlds and Munich, Minority Report and Catch Me if You Can, Jurassic Park and Schindler's List.  The Lost World and Amistad is the only 'off' double year, imo.


You forgot E.T. and Poltergeist. 

 

But personally I feel some of the films you listed are suspect.  They're not bad movies, but "great"?...don't know if I'd go that far.  AMC has been playing Jurassic Park the past few days and they had the nerve to call it his best film.

 

Reply
post #31 of 37
11/17/11 at 8:47pm

I think it's worth it to watch any Spielberg movie in the theater. The way the guy composes his shots is best realized on a big screen. Something is inevitably lost on a TV, even a large flat screen.


As to the quality issue: it is true we will not see work that has the intensity + craft of Jaws, CET3K or Raiders. But Munich and to a lesser degree WoW are films that will be watched and studied decades from now, both for their craft and for what they say about their time.

Reply
post #32 of 37
11/17/11 at 8:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

What I loved about Kurbrick was that he was incredibly picky about what he directed, so we didn't get very many films from him, making each film seem like an event and very special.  When you get so much of one thing, it tends to stale.

 

Nothing against Spielberg, I love him, but his glory days are long behind him.  I might catch this as a rental on a rainy day or on TV years from now, but there are too many other directors doing more exciting work I'd rather spend my $14 dollars on.  If going to the movies didn't cost so goddamn much, I'd be more willing to give this a shot right away...as of now, it's a big fat "meh" and I have no intention of seeing it in the near future.



Kubrick was one of a kind.  There is no other filmmaker like him.  Spielberg is a totally different animal and I don't consider him lesser than Kubrick.  You can't look at his body of work and not be awed.  Even if his movies aren't your cup of tea, he has entertained, moved, inspired and changed people with his films.  His movies are a huge part of my childhood and I can watch Jaws or Close Encounters or E.T. or Raiders and still love every minute.  And I loved War of the Worlds.  There's no one else like him either. 

Reply
post #33 of 37
11/17/11 at 8:59pm

Also, let's not forget that Jaws is almost forty years old. Shit's had time to marinate. Even Spielberg's great recent stuff like Munich, WotW, and Minority Report, and I'd venture to say AI and even Catch Me If You Can to a lesser extent, has only been around for ten years tops. I would be willing to bet Jaws, along with his other classics, wasn't hailed as that by 1985, and I think time will ultimately be kind to Spielberg's later work. Impossible to say for sure, but we'll just have to see.

Reply
post #34 of 37
11/17/11 at 9:00pm
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler View Post


 AMC has been playing Jurassic Park the past few days and they had the nerve to call it his best film.

 


AMC tends to go a little heavy on the hyperbole.  I loved the beauty and spectacle of it, but the storytelling not so much.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

I think it's worth it to watch any Spielberg movie in the theater. The way the guy composes his shots is best realized on a big screen. Something is inevitably lost on a TV, even a large flat screen.


As to the quality issue: it is true we will not see work that has the intensity + craft of Jaws, CET3K or Raiders. But Munich and to a lesser degree WoW are films that will be watched and studied decades from now, both for their craft and for what they say about their time.


This completely.

 

Reply
post #35 of 37
11/18/11 at 1:31am

Defending Spielberg from the likes of Ambler is probably not necessary.

 

This could well be a huge oscar year for Spielberg, as it sounds like he might have Best Animated wrapped up, and the Best Picture race lacks a clear front runner (like, at all). If War Horse just isn't boring, I think it stands a great chance of cleaning up on the awards circuit. As to how good it will be, fuck, who knows, probably pretty good. 

Reply
post #36 of 37
11/18/11 at 8:33am

No need to defend Spielberg from me, as I'm not dissing him...but he is certainly not above reproach. 

Reply
post #37 of 37
11/18/11 at 10:14am

No, of course not.  I mean, just try to watch Hook or Always.  It's not pleasant. 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › WAR HORSE GALLOPS INTO THE SUNSET … AND YOUR HEART